Roll back 10 years, and we find Unionen has just been born out of a merger between two unions representing white-collar workers based, respectively, in services and in Industry. The immediate problem was to find a response to an alarming loss in membership.

That answer was to set a target of increasing membership by 100,000 in two years. Target met, Unionen continued to grow and now has membership of over 600,000 – and a density level of almost 1:10 Swedish workers. In fact, more than 1 person in every 20 of Sweden’s entire population is a member.

These are heady figures, and they contribute to overall levels of Swedish unionisation that see higher levels of white-collar membership than blue-collar – and significantly more women members than their male counterparts.

Proving the adage that it’s not just what you’ve got, it’s also how you use it, Unionen went on to use Sweden’s legacy of sector-level co-determination to regulate and (where necessary) rein-in the fast -developing use of AI in their membership areas.

Their experience of algorithm-based work allocation, performance management and other HR functions was the same as the rest of us – namely, somewhat imperfect (to put it mildly).

But by insisting that use of AI is on a “technology neutral” basis – (e; where technology replaces people, that technology does not change the fundamental employment relationship, include the rights and obligations of works, unions and employers), Unionen and other Swedish unions can use the provisions of those sector-level agreements to maintain collective bargaining and collective agreements over how they are used.

Given the increasing prevalence of AI in our own economy – and the associated reduction in the control we can exert over our working lives – it seems vital that we get up to speed on this as quickly as possible.

Becky Wright and I grill the two Fredriks on how, in practical terms, this all works, what obstacles had to be overcome, and, crucially, the prospects and possibilities for importing “the Swedish experience” to these shores.

We also touch on some good news from Canada, and shout-out to BECTUfollowing a great campaign “win”.

The Unions21podcast is available here. Please do subscribe, rate, share and enjoy!

In case you missed it, the pitch to business by two companies, BioTeq (UK based) and Biohax (Sweden) is to improve security by microchipping employees. When even the CBI say this isn’t the right way to engage with employees, you know there’s an issue.

There is an immediate and worrying contradiction: The touted advantages – of never needing to worry about forgetting or losing keys as doors could be opened, and cars started with the wave of a micro-chipped hand – says nothing about “improving security.”

So why is it that micro-chipped workers are a safer bet than those who aren’t?

Could it be that the gateway into your life that chipping creates, allows employers access to……well, potentially everything. Where you go, what you eat (and drink/smoke), whether you have a healthy lifestyle (and all the presumptions that go into a definition of what that looks like).

And once that gateway is established, what control is there on who walks through it? We know there is a strong commercial and political appetite for disclosure of personal data, from store loyalty cards to mobile phone usage. We seem to have enough trouble hanging on to the data that already exists about us, without – almost literally – plugging ourselves into a system that can extract our very essence.

This is straight out of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. And for all the superficial convenience, the advantage of micro-chipping workers overwhelmingly falls to the employer. Salivating Short-term productivity gains could justify the investment, sure – but where does it take us in the longer term?

Will “being chipped” become an essential requirement of getting the job? If you are “always on”, where is the dividing line between work and rest? What price your personal privacy? Can you even switch the thing off? Will piece-rate payment, already a pernicious tool, become even more refined given the ability for your time to now be micro-managed?

Will those who decline chipping achieve some sort of pariah status? What do innocent people have to hide? And will eventually the technology be so invasive as to disqualify people for certain jobs automatically, without recourse because of how an algorithm has interpreted chip-generated data? If you had every incentive, encouragement and above all technological ability to do this, why would you not?

Automation has always carried risks for workers and constant challenge for unions and government is to maximise the benefits and mitigate the dangers. But every RF chip with a human host, reduces the sum of the very things that make us the people we are – choice, independence of thought and action, the right to some privacy. And, yes, the right to sometimes make bad choices, to make mistakes – because that is part of how we learn.

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Putting RF chips in people to make them harder – or safer – workers is something that is distinctly dystopian. It’s one of those things that needs a legal constraint and needs one very soon.

One unheralded part of last month’s budget was an inflation-busting increase for Britain’s poorest paid workers – the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and the National Living Wage (NLW) increases of 4.3% and 4.9% respectively announced by the Chancellor will directly affect 3 million people. And when you think of how many people have pay scales that are based on differentials with the NMW/NLW rates, you can see that the effective ‘bite” (how much of the workforce are affected) is very significant indeed.

In making this announcement, Philip Hammond was following a long line of Chancellors before him, in accepting the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission or LPC. This is one of the few remaining statutory bodies that is constructed on a social partnership model. Of the nine commissioners, three represent workers, three employers and three are independent including two very august academics.

In the latest Unions 21 podcast, Becky Wright discusses just how the Commission works in practice, and why it has been able to deliver successive increases in the headline rate of the NMW and more recently NLW, year upon year. She is joined by the three “worker” Commissioners, Kate Bell, Kay Carberry, and yours truly.

The Commissioners are supported by a truly first-rate secretariat – frankly what they don’t know about labour market economics and low pay isn’t worth measuring. It is they who make sure we Commissioners have the evidence before us so that our recommendations are very well founded.

But the statistical information is only part of the evidence base – in the podcast, Kay and Kate describe the process of taking evidence from unions, employer federations, and expert bodies like the Bank of England. We also go out on the road for numerous site visits – my account of a trip to North Devon is here– to meet with workers and employers on their own turf. This is crucial for making sure that we remain connected with the very people we not only seek to serve, but for whom our recommendations have such impact.

Indeed, if you have something to say on low pay – either a piece of research, or a suggestion for people or places the Commission should talk to – then please do get in touch with the Commission secretariat.

The social partnership model is one that works. The negotiations – and that is exactly what they are – deliver a consensus on how far we can raise the pay rates without jeopardising employment. But, as Kate says in the podcast, this is a legal floor, not the limit of our aspirations.

All in all, this episode is one that lifts the lid on an important British institution, and how it is possible to intervene in the labour market without the disastrous consequences the nay-sayers and doom-mongers were prophesising when the Commission was established nearly 20 years ago. In that sense it is surely a great success story, but as you will hear on the podcast, there is plenty of work still to be done.

]]>https://makes-you-think.com/2018/11/12/lifting-the-lid-on-the-low-pay-commission/feed/0IMG_2830simonsapperMisogyny – A Hate Crime In All But Name (to some)https://makes-you-think.com/2018/11/02/misogyny-a-hate-crime-in-all-but-name-to-some/
https://makes-you-think.com/2018/11/02/misogyny-a-hate-crime-in-all-but-name-to-some/#respondFri, 02 Nov 2018 11:15:14 +0000http://makes-you-think.com/?p=2214So, senior police officers seem to be rallying around a new flag just now – limited resources mean there needs to be a re-evalaution of where those resources are best directed. Recording incidents of misogyny and investigating complaints against dead people are, ahem, below the line.

I have every sympathy for police chiefs in trying to work smarter and harder with less money and increasing challenges. And whenever you prioritise one thing you necessarily downgrade, albeit perhaps on relatively, something else.

But the messaging here as well as the policy is dangerous and illogical.

Heard on the news this morning, a comment that it is important to keep on recording Hate Crimes because they lead to violence. So misogyny doesn’t? The logic – or illogic – is inescapable. Violence against women is both systematic and incidental, deeply ingrained and viciously casual. It wrecks lives, creates a toxic environment and is politically, morally, economically desperately counter-productive.

The deeply spurious nature of siphoning off misogyny from other Hate Crimes can be found in the definitions of each term. When it comes to attacks on women because they are women, they are interchangeable.

The madness doesn’t stop here. Unfortunately. I think I understand what is meant by retreating from complaints about dead people. But I’m sure the victims of, say , Jimmy Saville, felt a deep need to be heard. And the lessons we need to learn from historic cases of abuse, cannot be brought before us if they go to the grave together with the perpetrators.

So a bad day for incomprehensible news analysis. But the alarm sounded by police chiefs is real and deserves consideration. Just like the rest of our public services, they have been starved of resources and had warnings of the consequences brushed away. But austerity has always been a political choice, and in this episode we see who benefits: It isn’t.women or the victims of now-dead criminals.

In 1982, Colin Welland won the Oscar for best screenplay. The film, also winner of the Oscar for best picture, was Chariots of Fire. Welland accepted his award with the clarion call: “The British Are Coming!”

Setting aside he historical contradiction – those words are first attributed to US patriot Paul Revere, who rode through the night to warn his compatriots of an impending British attack in the war of independence – Welland’s iconic contribution reminds us of the key role creative industries – like film making – have played in our history, and in our economy. And also, as a source of pride and a vital component of our national identity.

But, as the latest Unions21 podcast reminds us, the creative industries made not only great music, films, drama, tele etc etc etc – but also were based on a gig economy model long before the term was popularised.

The fact that this way of working has endured for so long makes it all the more important and impressive that workers and their unions are meeting the challenge with fresh – and you might say game-changing – vigour.

Charlotte described her patch as one within which members are either low paid or not paid at all – the Low Pay/No Pay ballpark. It is interesting how this industry-specific initiative has repercussions that will ring bells/push buttons/whatever for all trade unionists.

So, when we discuss the risks of being a performer in some of the newer forms of theatre, it reprises concerns about the repeal of the third-party harassment legislation that loomed large in our discussion last time on civil servants in Westminster.

And when Charlotte explains the process by which Equity came to grasp this nettle, by concluding that member’s subscription money had to go not where it came from, but to where it was most needed, she is echoing a central argument Gavin Kelly set out for us in his analysis of the labour movement.

Above all, in a discussion littered with many pithy trenchant and absolutely accurate one-liners, Charlotte described how and why this work is “a journey, not an event.”

At its heart is the conundrum of how a fabulously wealthy lucrative sector can treat most of the people who work in it so badly. Unless and until challenged, you might say that’s not a conundrum, more a consequence of the exploitation, opportunity and optimism that infuses this business.

Bad behaviour in Parliament – and I mean verbal or even physical assault of staff by elected (or appointed, in the case of the Lords) members – has been highlighted by a “don’t-pull-you-punches” report from Dame Laura Cox.

A key recommendation. Is that the complaints system needs reform and needs it now. Parliamentarians should not judge allegations of this misconduct themselves; there should be an independent process.

The reasons for this are all too clear – fairness, transparency, and a sense of justice. And, also, a justifiable belief that Parliament cannot do this for itself, as some of the responses to the report arguably showed.

But there are two practical reasons which have been overshadowed by the Cox report and reaction, both of which need recognising and debunking before they become established as a justification for doing nothing.

First up: MPs are elected by the people. How can a panel, even an independent one, sit in judgement on them, let alone take a decision to suspend them from the Commons if they are judged to have misbehaved seriously?

It’s a fair point – until you consider the alternative. The current reality is that the fate of errant MPs depends on party politics and parliamentary maths and nothing more.

It’s also not a fair point in the sense that we have already lived with a scheme that had independent people sitting in judgement on elected politicians, with a power to suspend them from office in series cases. The Local Government Act 2000 gave quasi-judicial powers to Standards Committees in England, which lasted until the Coalition Government’s Localism Act abolished them in 2012.

The rationale for doing so was that a centrally determined regime for local authority conduct was deemed incompatible with localism – though this is so at odds with the government’s subsequent behaviour towards local authorities and the communities they serve, that the cost savings arising from abolition of the Standards Board for England was probably the main driver.

And in any event, Scotland has retained and refined its own Standards Regime, if you want to look at a live working example.

So, to our second point; MPs are employed by Parliament, so any complaints would be made against a third party. How can that work? What mechanism can bridge the different lines of accountability that would apply in such a circumstance?

At the heart of this are two inter-twined employment issues: Bullying in a workplace and the absence a sufficiently powerful collective worker voice to make it stop. So great credit to the FDA union and others for speaking truth unto power on this. It’s time for the good people in Parliament to say “Enough”. There is no reason they cannot, and every reason that they should.

You can hear more about this issue and the union response to it in our latest podcast, available here

The latest Unions 21 podcast is out now – Becky Wright and I put Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell’s commitment to employment rights on day 1 , and workers-on-the-board into perspective. These things are, of course, nothing new in trade union circles – but he clearly struck a raw nerve with some people. You’ll have to listen to find out just who’s response we think was “hysterical” – and why!

We also give a five-minute primer on the Commission for Collective Voice – an 18-month project to give definition and focus on what collective bargaining means and looks like in today’s economy. Becky sets out what the Commission is doing, and how you can make your contribution to this most existential of projects.

Our featured guest this episode is Dr Chris Wright of Sydney University – and no relation, btw, of our esteemed Director, though they did once share an office (cue much confusion, a you’ll hear).

Chris takes us on a grand tour of Aussie industrial relations, checking off many challenges we would instantly recognise – but describing very different ways in which labour and government have responded. A premium for non-contract hours, such as Matthew Taylor pressed for in his report (and that the UK’s Low Pay Commission is due to make recommendations to government on this autumn), is a stable diet of the Australian Fair Work Commission. But you’ll hear how this works more like a Wages Council, spawning a myriad of minimum wage rates by sector and employer.( An interesting view on the power of these bodies to address “endemic pay inequality” is here)

This keys into something that is a core common concern in modern industrial economies – in an era of low union densities and disorganised employers, just how do you get employers to the table in order to negotiate?

That’s where Ms Perkins– the first woman to serve in a US cabinet, and Secretary of Labour for an unparalleled 12 years from 1933 – comes into play. Chris tells us why he believes her championing of workers’ rights still speaks to us today.

During his discussion, Chris signposts a number of “good reads”. The links are:

But you don’t need to refer to these to enjoy Chris’s contribution – it is a wide-ranging all-embracing canter through the Australian employment landscape which I urge you to download/stream/immerse-yourself-in as soon as you can.

The podcast is available on a variety of platforms, includingPodbean, iTunes and Mixcloud and is also available from the Unions21 site. Don’t forget to rate us on the platform of your choice – we really appreciate your support.

There are four levels of loud shirts in my wardrobe. Four volume pre-sets if you like. But something underpins them all. That is, with the possible exception of the first, least loud pre-set, they are loud shirts, not shite shirts – though I’m more than happy to give the latter a plug.

Pre-set one is the sober shirt. Plain in design and colour. Perhaps an Oxford collar, or maybe not. Sober is not insipid. Sober is not washed out. But nor does Sober scream at you. It is the blue of a Mediterranean Sea, the pink of Peonies. It can be, on those rare occasions where formality overwhelms all other considerations, as white and crisp as fresh snow. Just sometimes, less is more.

Pre-set two is the slightly adventurous. Something to catch the eye. A motif, say, or a combination of shapes and colours. We are moving at a fairly brisk walk, but not so much as to immediately attract attention – more cause someone to look twice. The juxta positioning of suit and shirt, for instance. There may be a raised eyebrow or nod of appreciation. Quite unnecessary, of course.

Pre-set three and we are cruising. Singing in public, but for the pleasure of it, not busking. This is the standard volume, the expected, comfortable default setting. Close friends and colleagues expect to see new design ideas, swirls and colours, are quizzical or concerned if they are not on show. “My gran’s got curtains like your shirt, “ said a young colleague once in amazement. “Your gran clearly has excellent taste, “ was the only possible – and true – response.

But, alas, it is not always possible to go from 0 to 60, sartorially, as fast as one would wish. If you are the new kid on the block, still assessing and being assessed, you need to set a learning curve, a progression path for your audience, lest minor flamboyance is confused for a lack of gravitas.

Pre-set four is a shout. This really is “look at me” territory. High days, holidays and celebrations. Can also be used to shock, if that’s what you want. They may not remember your name, but no-one forgets a level 4 shirt. (One I once wore so agitated people that there was a move to buy it off my back in the interests of decency. I agreed if £200 could be raised for charity. It turned out it wasn’t that much of a problem, so the shirt remains available for selection!).

Of course, this is a linear not a step scale. Many of my shirts fall between categories. I don’t have shirts for all occasions or combinations. One colleague at somewhere I have just started working noted with surprise a less-florid-than-expected shirt. Poor planning on my part, but I just didn’t have something right between levels 2 and 3.

I explained this, and the four-pre-set scale. “That could apply much more widely, “ he mused. That got me thinking, and of course he is right. Four default pre-sets at work, in life even. Why ever not?

The @unions21 podcast is one year old! To celebrate, Becky Wright and me joined the TUC Congress in Manchester for our latest episode, to catch up with the newest General Secretary on- the-block Paddy Lillis of USDAW to find out how his union recruits NINETY THOUSAND members a year, and Antonia Bance who spells out the TUC’s major new WORKSMART initiative

Our chat with Paddy gave real grounds for optimism. It’s not just that USDAW churns each year more members than most unions have, but also that in a time of turmoil for the retail sector, they post persistently growing membership stats. Just how do you set yourself up to process that level of recruitment activity?

And, crucially, the demographic is young. That shouldn’t surprise anyone really given the retail sector is the refuge of first and student jobbers. But there are also over 700 young reps to go with several thousand new young members. Enough of the spoilers, you’ll have to listen to podcast to find out more.

It’s always a pleasure to talk to Antonia, and on the podcast you can hear the enthusiasm in her voice for the Worksmart programme she is leading on at Congress House. This is more than a rerun of previous youth engagement strategies. And with density rates amongst young people down well below 10%, it needs to be. The key to success here will be genuine collaboration between TUC affiliates themselves and with the TUC centrally. Never has it been truer that. divided we fall but united we may succeed! Listen in to find out more.

And last but not least we review our standing-room only fringe events, one on Digital Transformation, and the other focussing on Collective Voice. We’ll walk you through the issues associated with both compelling issues, with invaluable help in the form of voxpops from our stellar speakers including Rachel Reeves,Alison Charlton, Jenny Andrew, Jon SkewesAli Milani and Amy Leversidge.

You can access the all the Unions21 podcasts here. Enjoy, share, rate! Thanks!

Good governance is at the heart of all organisations and unions are no different. It is, literally, the difference between success and failure. In the fifth and final Unions21bite-sized masterclass, Claire Sullivanfrom the Chartered Society of Physiotherapytalks about what her union has done to ensure its structures do not just reflect members’ priorities, but also empowers them. There is expert analysis from Becky Wright, SPERI’s Tom Hunt, and me.

We welcome the support of the University of Sheffield’s Political Economy Research Institute, known as SPERI, and Beyond Trafficking and Slavery on openDemocracy. (Beyond Trafficking and Slavery is non-profit project combining clear writing with rigourous scholarship to help everyone better understand exploitation in the world of work. Find out more at opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery.) Music courtesy of Podsummit.com. A Makes-you-Thinkproduction.

You can listen to the podcast on iTunesor the Unions21website. You can also hear more from Claire and the work of the CSP in an earlier podcast, which you can access here.